Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pro-Life Group Obtains Internal Documents Showing Pro-Abortion Strategy
LifeNews.com ^ | December 6, 2003 | Paul Nowak

Posted on 12/08/2003 2:24:04 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (CFAM) announced Thursday that it has obtained internal memos from the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) detailing the strategy to develop international pro-abortion laws that can be imposed and enforced throughout the world -- ultimately government financed abortion on demand worldwide.

"The memos appear to confirm long-standing fears of some legal scholars that international negotiations on human rights laws are no longer conducted in good faith, and that national sovereignty is jeopardized by such negotiations," wrote Douglas Sylvia, Vice President of CFAM, in the first of a series of three regarding the memos released Thursday.

In an interview with LifeNews.com, Austin Ruse, President of CFAM, called the CRR a "very radical and very powerful" pro-abortion law firm located in New York, and said the document, which summarizes the conclusions of strategic planning meetings held by CRR in late October, is "vitally important" and should be read by all policy makers.

CFAM plans to unveil more on the CRR memos over the next two weeks. In addition, CFAM has provided the document to select organizations, and sometime next week it will be make it generally available to the public.

Ruse told LifeNews.com that while the strategy disclosed in the document is "nothing new" to his organization, it is a "smoking gun" belying the tactics pro-abortion groups have denied for years -- tactics that he called "primarily deception."

"Most of their work is getting governments to accept language that will change meanings later," said Ruse. "For instance, they like the phrase ‘reproductive health’ instead of ‘abortion’ -- if they used ‘abortion’ they'd likely lose. When it comes to enforcement, that term can be used to refer to abortion."

Such is the strategy summarized in the 60-page document that was sent to CFAM from an anonymous source.

The document states that CRR’s "overarching goal is to ensure that governments worldwide guarantee reproductive rights out of an understanding that they are bound to do so." This goal includes the international establishment of the "inalienable nature" of "sexual rights," including "sexual autonomy" for girls, specifically "reproductive information and services, such as abortion, without parental notification or consent," according to Sylvia. Such policies and international laws could be enforced on governments, nullifying their sovereignty over such issues.

CRR plans to employ a three-step strategy to achieve their goal.

First, they hope to take advantage of accepted international rights, referred to as "hard norms," and expand the interpretations to embody elements of the pro-abortion agenda.

"Thus, CRR claims to have found, or "grounded," a right to abortion in the right to life, the right to health, even the right to enjoy scientific progress," noted Sylvia.

In the documents, CRR states that this technique is preferred because "There is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition."

The next step in the plan is to create new international laws, termed "soft norms," that mention abortion and sexual autonomy. If presented and repeated enough, such laws may become hard norms – ones that can be considered binding for nations.

"Soft norms accumulate in a host of international and regional settings, including through the European Court of Human Rights and UN compliance committees," CFAM said in announcing the memos.

The final step in CRR’s strategy is to enforce the new laws on resisting nations – "supporting efforts to strengthen existing enforcement mechanisms, such as the campaign for the International Criminal Court and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. (CEDAW)"

According to the UN website, CEDAW, approved in 1979, "is often described as an international bill of rights for women. Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination."

CEDAW refers to abortion as a "medical procedure … needed by women" and states that "it is discriminatory for a country to refuse to legally provide for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women."

CEDAW has garnered support from many pro-abortion groups for this reason, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who criticized President Bush for his lack of support, and called his refusal to sign it "a testament to his overall contempt for women and his steadfast refusal to respect their fundamental civil and human rights."

In November, nineteen pro-abortion organizations sent a letter to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte, calling the recent U.S. resolution to boost the role of women in national governments "lip service" to women's rights, simply because it failed to promote CEDAW.

"CEDAW offers not only words, but an enforcement mechanism for implementing steps towards equality," including "numerical and timebound" quotas, according to the NGO’s letter, meaning that the Convention, and its agenda to make abortion more readily available, has the same binding power of international law.

"[They] are all leaders in the struggle for an international right to abortion-on-demand for adolescents and women," said Sylvia. "They have been pleased that the CEDAW Committee, the committee that oversees nations' compliance with the Convention, has repeatedly told nations to legalize abortion."

Such previous actions by the pro-abortion groups are why Ruse isn't surprised by the strategy described in the document, but feels that the "blueprint" is crucial.

Recent developments, he added, make the international pro-abortion agenda a rising concern.

"We are in a post-Lawrence world," Rose said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared laws banning sodomy to be unconstitutional – a decision based in part on foreign laws and decisions.

"This is Armageddon for Roe V. Wade," Rose told LifeNews.com. "If it were to go back to the Supreme Court now, other countries laws would be considered in the decision."

The Lawrence decision, now allows pro-abortion groups to "encourage out Court to accept foreign decisions."

Related Links: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute - http://www.c-fam.org


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cedaw; cfam; crr; internationallaw; nhs; proabortion; prolife
Unless the U.S. public begins to rise up and fight this current holocaust, the "right" to kill unborn human beings will become cemented into law around the world.

About 3500 pre-born human beings die each day in the United States. The "right" to childless unprotected sex is extremely costly for those aborted and our society. Now is the time to get involved.

1 posted on 12/08/2003 2:24:05 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Bump for later review
2 posted on 12/08/2003 2:45:59 AM PST by The_Eaglet (#conservative IRC http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
I recently saw a document on National Organization for Women's (NOW) website in which they were discussing a way to get Federal funding for abortions. Their idea involved calling the baby a "parasite". They said that a person has the right to be protected by a police officer if someone is attacking them, and that the police officer is government funded. Likewise, they said that they must make the case that the unborn baby is "attacking" the Mother's body - and must also be protected via government funds. Sick.
3 posted on 12/08/2003 2:53:18 AM PST by Jaysun (Get real, Control-Everybody-But-Yourselves freaks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
As usual, the UN v/s the right of nations sovereignty are the issues here.
4 posted on 12/08/2003 3:16:57 AM PST by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
I will always wonder how so many can maintain the absurdly hypocritical position of the pro-abortion crowd. They, as a matter of fact, hold the following view. "Now that I have lived through the pregnancy that gave me life and I support a woman's "right" to kill pre-born children just like me."
5 posted on 12/08/2003 3:31:40 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
I agree. I maintain that there position is in fact so absurd that reason points to their having another motive besides "choice".
6 posted on 12/08/2003 3:42:39 AM PST by Jaysun (Get real, Control-Everybody-But-Yourselves freaks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Yes, the one-worlders are busy making law for people they do not represent, whittling away at national sovereignty in relative secrecy. It is made more serious because our judges, who have sworn to uphold our constitution, are increasingly siting international law in their decisions.
7 posted on 12/08/2003 3:44:07 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
another motive besides "choice".

I agree that there must be some reason(s) that motivates them beyond common understanding.

1. The promise of truly "free sex" can only be realized when procreation can be positively short circuited, i.e. through baby killing.

2. Money is a big motivator for the baby killing industry, but the numbers of those who owe their income to this grizzly practice does not explain the level of political influence.

3. Those in the population control circles in world politics probably fantasize about unspoiled by so many human beings. Killing people is unpopular. Granting women the "right" to kill her own children spins better and is far less visible means of controlling population.

4. Macro economic issues tie into the motivations for abortion in some ways I don't fully understand. In the short term, you can get a bump in productivity if less of it is spent on raising children. Any fool can see the down side of the policy long term. The department of labor has forecast major labor shortfalls in a couple of decades. I contend that a main brake on our economic growth is our low birth rate. I also believe that most of the social security shortage can largely be explained by a womans "right" to kill.

8 posted on 12/08/2003 4:24:17 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
3. Those in the population control circles in world politics probably fantasize about [a world] unspoiled by so many human beings. Killing people is unpopular. Granting women the "right" to kill her own children spins better and is far less visible means of controlling population.
9 posted on 12/08/2003 4:27:49 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?; cpforlife.org; MHGinTN
A ping for ya'll for once and a BUMP!
10 posted on 12/08/2003 4:31:31 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
If presented and repeated enough, such laws may become hard norms

They are masters of propaganda. Nothing here we didn't know already, but it's good to have confirmation.

11 posted on 12/08/2003 4:43:21 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Killing people is unpopular. Granting women the "right" to kill her own children spins better and is far less visible means of controlling population.

There's a perverse logic to this that has its origins in hell.

12 posted on 12/08/2003 4:46:03 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Could you give me a link to that comment regarding "parasite?"

I have a friend who has a radio talk show that would find that very interesting.

13 posted on 12/08/2003 4:49:10 AM PST by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Those are all real reasons as to why the nuts support abortion. I think that the large thing that holds them all together is the fact that they see abortion as a way of making things equal between women and men. They see it as a way to further erode the family and a way to help them to their socialist goals. This is not only true for abortion (of course) but for other things that they're in support of such as homosexual marriage. Here's a quote from the goals of a 2000 workshop put on by the abortion loving NOW. It was entitled:

"Engaging the Political with the Personal: Domestic Partnership, Civil Unions and Marriage"

"Domestic partnership and same-sex marriage legislation and litigation may provide a vehicle for challenging some of our most oppressive social structures as they connect the profoundly personal with the political. What has been left out in recent domestic partnership and civil unions efforts? How can they serve to challenge the patriarchal foundations of our society?"

Other quotes from that workshop include:
"In this workshop participants can strategize for further media activism to change the face and body of the media"

"In this workshop activists will discuss what to do about affirmative action in this era of conservatism and complacency."

"Join a discussion on ways to achieve quality health care for all women."

"Make the media work for you!"

"Sowing the Seeds of Discontent in Conservative Areas"

"A panel of women who have achieved power in mainstream institutions —law, medicine, politics — discuss making change from the inside. Can you do the job you're expected to do and still carry out your commitment to equality? How do you advance feminism and not reverse your career? What can you bring to the movement, and what do you need from movement activists? Gain new insight into how we can strengthen each other's hands by playing an inside/outside strategy."

"Constitutional and Legal Strategies:"

http://www.now.org/organization/conference/2000/workshops.html

"We envision a world where patriarchal culture and male dominance no longer oppress us or our earth."

http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1998/vision98.html
14 posted on 12/08/2003 5:27:39 AM PST by Jaysun (Get real, Control-Everybody-But-Yourselves freaks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?; scripter; *Pro_Life
Bump & Ping
15 posted on 12/08/2003 5:46:33 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware
Could you give me a link to that comment regarding "parasite?"
I have a friend who has a radio talk show that would find that very interesting.

__________________________________
I think this is it. It's interesting. It talks about how to get the state to pay for abortions, how to refer to abortions in legal terms in order to win, and hot to start thinking about how the unborn "invades the woman against her will" as if the baby is some kind of criminal. It'll make you sick - but it's a good read.

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/mcdonagh.html
16 posted on 12/08/2003 5:59:50 AM PST by Jaysun (Get real, Control-Everybody-But-Yourselves freaks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
....international establishment of the "inalienable nature" of "sexual rights," including "sexual autonomy" for girls..

Somebody wants to make it legal to get very young girls into prostitution, eh? Hillary attended an international women's conference in Vienna while her husband was in the White House, and advocated lowering the 'age of consent' for girls to 12 years, also legalizing prostitution! And this, during the time that she and her husband were photographed smiling in the White House with the biggest, most notorious pimp (of women and children) in Asia! (and receiving illegal money from him, no doubt)

17 posted on 12/08/2003 6:35:39 AM PST by WaterDragon (GWB is The MAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Re:
"...if they used ‘abortion’ they'd likely lose...."

The term "abortion" is too vague for legal processes and encompasses
too broad a spectrum both legally and medically.

The propaganda of both sides of this issue has always been the 
far side of preposterous; this entire scenario is a great example.

[and now we have "pre-born human beings"?]

 

18 posted on 12/08/2003 7:36:16 AM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?; All
The only comfort that Planned Parenthood gives me is knowing that Margret Sanger is being tormented for eternity in Hell.
19 posted on 12/08/2003 7:45:44 AM PST by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Ababy is now a parasite? Oh dear God! Who is having sex with these "women"?
20 posted on 12/08/2003 8:26:01 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
The most disturbing thing here is that the pro-death groups are planning to use international law, which no American has voted for or affirmed, to "enforce" their deadly designs. It is impossible to overstate how disasterous this could be.

Pro-abortionists have accomplished everything they set out to accomplish - absolute right to murder an unborn baby at any point in pregnancy for any reason or no reason. Yet one thing still remains: force every taxpayer to pay for it. The Hyde amendment, passed in the late 1970's, stands in their way and that isn't likely to be voted out. So they must use international law.
21 posted on 12/08/2003 8:29:48 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Part of the motive for some of these women is simply that some women do not want to appear to be un - hip , or un- cool.

They don't want to be associated with the "mean and uptight" Republicans who remind them of their fathers.

It is really that simple sometimes. Most women are social creatures ,and so desperately want to "fit in" that they will follow whatever the "cool girl" does.

If the "cool girl" has a Right to choose " agenda, many women will follow without thinking about it much.

22 posted on 12/08/2003 8:33:04 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
A baby is now a parasite? Oh dear God! Who is having sex with these "women"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nobody! They want a baby to be considered a parasite so that they can get Federal funding (aka our money) to pay for abortions. So to them, not only is there a "right to choose" there's a "right to have it paid for". Very sick. They need to be exposed to all!
23 posted on 12/08/2003 8:35:03 AM PST by Jaysun (Get real, Control-Everybody-But-Yourselves freaks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Oh, the libs just live providing free abortions for brown people. Sanger lives.

Sickening.

24 posted on 12/08/2003 8:36:58 AM PST by Petronski (Living life in a minor key.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?; SpookBrat; dansangel
Thank you for this info. I subscribe to the CFAM newsletter but hadn't received anything on this yet.

Ping to Spooky and dansangel--please send on if you know anyone else interested in this issue. Thanks! :)

25 posted on 12/08/2003 8:42:36 AM PST by Donaeus (HYDRA-SHOK, it does the body good. . .Just ask a Neanderthal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
Part of the motive for some of these women is simply that some women do not want to appear to be un - hip , or un- cool. They don't want to be associated with the "mean and uptight" Republicans who remind them of their fathers.
It is really that simple sometimes. Most women are social creatures ,and so desperately want to "fit in" that they will follow whatever the "cool girl" does. If the "cool girl" has a Right to choose " agenda, many women will follow without thinking about it much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've been arguing that since wild poodles roamed the earth! The liberals have to go to the Universities and wherever else to perpetuate the idea that they're "cool" or "hip" because their ideas aren't good enough to draw people otherwise. I know that being cool doesn't = being a Democrap because I'm unbelievably cool and I'm not a Democrat. I'm proof positive! I don't know if you noticed, but that kook Soros gave millions to the DEMS to help them try to beat President Bush (uh-huh). Know what their idea is? To go find fresh, new, young voters. That tells me that the voters who already know them won't vote for them - and they know it. Most of their nonsense is built on lies. I think that we MUST work on exposing their lies, their crazy vision for America, and we have to work on catching up with the kiddos.
26 posted on 12/08/2003 9:21:49 AM PST by Jaysun (Get real, Control-Everybody-But-Yourselves freaks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
What about the child's right to be born?
Yes, we need to talk about rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - even for the innocent victims of the pro-death abortion holocaust. More children have died at the hands of liberals than any war in world history. All slaughtered by inhuman torture - being dismembered alive.
A human rights violation? Yes. Should the courts charge them with mass murder? Yes.
To expose the killers for what they are, we need to get more pictures of the dead out there. Only by seeing the horrors of what's happening to those poor children will the eyes of the blind be opened.
One picture of a dismembered infant would tell a thousands words, and those words will be loud and clear.
27 posted on 12/08/2003 9:36:39 AM PST by concerned about politics ( "Satire". It's Just "Satire.".......So it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
One picture of a dismembered infant would tell a thousands words, and those words will be loud and clear.

Most people know the truth. I don't know anyone that hasn't seen the pictures. They are just too much into selfishness and evil. Peaceful protest is not working.
I wonder how many "doctors" thought twice before choosing to do abortions thanks to Clayton Waagner who killed in defense of "innocent third parties" ..the babies... to stop one doc from killing. Even if it was just one, would that make it worth it?
If the babies are people and not parasites, than you can't very well say that what he did is any more wrong than killing someone with a gun to someone else's head.
Right??
What about killing the Nazis for the holocaust. If that's "different" I'd like to know how?? When do people draw the line with regard to violence??
Never??
Are you sure???
We are talking about 45 MILLION people exterminated so far...never in history has this happened..ever.
I'm not advocating such, but it will sure be nice to see the logic of all those who disagree with my rhetorical questions...and I bet your disagreement holds no water logically..or Biblically.

28 posted on 12/08/2003 9:57:46 AM PST by Indie (We were warned. My people perish for lack of knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Abortion TV. (Not for kids, but a great teaching tool.)
29 posted on 12/08/2003 9:57:48 AM PST by concerned about politics ( "Satire". It's Just "Satire.".......So it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
If you were born after 1973, you are a survivor.
30 posted on 12/08/2003 9:59:34 AM PST by concerned about politics ( "Satire". It's Just "Satire.".......So it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
UN enforcement of Abortions!

Blue Helmets guarding Abortion Clinics in South Africa and East LA!
31 posted on 12/08/2003 10:03:52 AM PST by CyberCowboy777 (I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
The really scary part of this are some of the Supremes, like Ginsburg, Kennedy, and O'Connor who are leaning to honoring international law above the Constitution.
32 posted on 12/08/2003 10:05:01 AM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All; Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Words that change meaning later? If anyone has never read 1984 it is mandatory reading.

Ginsberg and OConnor of the USSC are suspects number one for this manure.
33 posted on 12/08/2003 10:12:22 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
The most disturbing thing here is that the pro-death groups are planning to use international law

Yes. And since the Supreme Court uses the Constitution for toilet paper, and since the American people are completely ignorant of this fact, little stands in their way.

34 posted on 12/08/2003 10:55:32 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
and since the American people are completely ignorant of this fact,

Socialist indoctrination centers - public schools.
The more dumbed down the people are, the easier they are to decieve.
They become cattle.

35 posted on 12/08/2003 11:13:54 AM PST by concerned about politics ( "Satire". It's Just "Satire.".......So it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Indie
Most people know the truth. I don't know anyone that hasn't seen the pictures.

This is the honest to God truth.
I was surfing the DUmmies site after the signing of the late term abortion bill. No, they do not know it's a baby. They call it a "blob of jello."
I thought I bookmarket the page, but I can't find it. I really wanted to save it.
They have no idea, because they don't want to know. They believe it's still a body part, like a liver.

36 posted on 12/08/2003 11:18:02 AM PST by concerned about politics ( "Satire". It's Just "Satire.".......So it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
'The really scary part of this are some of the Supremes, like Ginsburg, Kennedy, and O'Connor who are leaning to honoring international law above the Constitution."

They need to be ....... replaced.

37 posted on 12/08/2003 11:29:01 AM PST by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
#22- this is absolutely true, and the libs understand the psychology of it all very, very well.
38 posted on 12/08/2003 11:42:52 AM PST by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Yes, but some men are having sex with some women who believe this evilness.

Since I believe that most men are really more compassionate than most women, I plead with these men to be more careful.

39 posted on 12/08/2003 12:32:55 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
There's a perverse logic to this that has its origins in hell.

I agree that this is largely a spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil. The two main challenges before us is convincing people to make good choices and changing the Supreme Court in preparation for a challenge to Roe. We need to be less timid about how & how often we attempt to protect the pre-born.

40 posted on 12/09/2003 9:05:10 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Nothing here we didn't know already, but it's good to have confirmation.

My impressions of this article are that we need to be fighting for life with more urgency. Once a right to "reproductive health" becomes a hard norm in international law which our courts will defer to, pro-life vicories will become more difficult.

41 posted on 12/09/2003 9:14:32 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
abortion as a way of making things equal between women and men.

You are right. Women see men having unprotected sex and getting away without children. The liberal mind would ask for the same for women. Allowing women to kill children as means of achieving equality seems patently corrupt to me.

The law should seek equality by giving social & financial responsibility to both men and women when a child is conceived.

42 posted on 12/09/2003 9:30:07 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon
GWB is the Man! Howard Dean would be more liberal than the Clintons. We all need to help Bush remain the Man in 04'.
43 posted on 12/09/2003 9:36:06 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Donaeus
I subscribe to the CFAM newsletter but hadn't received anything on this yet.

You might try subscribing to www.LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report. They send a daily or weekly pro-life news letter out via e-mail. I read it every day for information on current life issues from around the world. Subscription is easy and free. Just enter your e-mail address on the left side of the page.

44 posted on 12/09/2003 9:58:36 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Only by seeing the horrors of what's happening to those poor children will the eyes of the blind be opened.

I agree that many are in denial about what abortion is and about the personhood of the pre-born children they never see.

There is a pro-life group that is actively trying draw people out of their denial with pictures of the truth.

http//www.abortionno.org

As disturbing as it is, I believe that the visual facts will be a necessary part of winning this war for our children.

45 posted on 12/09/2003 10:15:01 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
46 posted on 12/09/2003 10:17:03 AM PST by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Blue Helmets guarding Abortion Clinics in South Africa and East LA!

Our local Right to Life Chapter marched in a parade a few days ago. I met two Catholics from Nigeria who are here to study in the seminary. Their society has no legal abortions. One of them told me that anyone who would consider such a thing would be widely viewed as insane in their country.

He shared with me a number of his impressions about our country, our media, etc. It was the first time I felt real shame for how far we have let our country degenerate. After talking with him for some time, my impression was that he saw America as a country in need of outside assistance and his dedicated missionary efforts.

To think that an international body may someday try to force legal, government financed abortions in Nigeria and countries like them, makes me a little crazy.

47 posted on 12/09/2003 10:39:41 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh? (Pro-choice: hypocrisy defined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Thank you for the URL, it's always good to have another source of information.
48 posted on 12/09/2003 10:40:12 AM PST by Donaeus (HYDRA-SHOK, it does the body good. . .Just ask a Neanderthal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
We all need to help Bush remain the Man in 04'.

Yes!

And we need to start talking about what we'll do minimize Dimwit voter fraud.

49 posted on 12/09/2003 10:53:13 AM PST by WaterDragon (GWB is The MAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson